This year's winners of the Pulitzer Prizes for journalism are an impressive lot. The Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal are among the frequent victors from year to year and 2025 was no exception. Together, they exposed corruption and other failures in government and institutions, ranging from the international (poor government policy in Afghanistan, conflict in Sudan) to the shockingly local (the attempt on Donald Trump's life in Pennsylvania.)

While journalism is proud of its achievements, with so many newspapers going out of business,  it’s harder to quantify whether such corruption is increasing. Consider these sobering numbers: According to Northwestern University's annual "State of Local News Report," more than two U.S. newspapers go out of business every week, and that rate is accelerating. 

Since 2005, we've lost more than 3,200 print newspapers. With these closures comes a correlated loss of jobs: The report says from 2022 to 2023 alone, "newsroom jobs — mostly reporters and editors — decreased by almost 2,000 positions, while newspaper employment overall shrank by more than 7,000 jobs."

Less local news equals more corruption

What does this mean for the public — you and me — when there are fewer publications and reporters to expose corruption? Is corruption more likely to occur when nobody is minding the store? The answer, according to a troubling new study, is most definitely yes. 

Is the boom in digital media taking up the slack in such coverage? The study, by Brad Greenwood from George Mason University and Ted Matherly, then of Northeastern University, says no.

The authors focused on 65 major newspapers that closed between 1996 and 2018, because they were seen as having the resources to conduct investigative journalism. As Greenwood explained earlier this month in Columbia Journalism Review, "We then compared the trends in federal corruption charges filed in U.S. district court across districts that did and did not experience the loss of a major daily newspaper. The results were unambiguous. All else being equal, the closure of a newspaper yielded a 6.9 percent increase in corruption charges, a 6.8 percent increase in the number of indicted defendants, and a 7.4 percent increase in cases filed."

While the authors couldn’t say exactly why the loss of newspapers might lead to more corruption, they had some theories. “One possibility, of course, is simply that serious news outlets are more likely to have reporters who put in the legwork — showing up to town hall meetings, tracking down public officials — that could lead to revelations about abuses of power,” Greenwood wrote.

He also noted: “Specifically, we saw that after a newspaper closure, prosecutors were more likely to offer plea deals rather than take corruption cases to trial. This suggests that newspapers may play an important role in elevating the public profile of corruption cases — perhaps by sustaining pressure on prosecutors to see them through, or by maximizing public awareness of the case. It’s possible these choices may also cause corrupt officials to falsely assume that, in the absence of a newspaper, their acts of corruption will go undetected.”

Greenwood and Matherly also measured the impact of online outlets. They found that digital publications had not filled the void for investigative projects on corruption.

They "didn’t change, or even attenuate, the main result: corruption cases went up regardless. From the standpoint of corruption prevention, the impact of these outlets was negligible," Greenwood wrote.

Battling news desertification

This is yet another reason to support your local newspapers. I know, I know, that sounds terribly old-fashioned. Why, you ask, should you PAY for a subscription when you can get whatever you want for free online? I see comments like this on social media all the time — people criticizing news outlets for their paywalls — and it makes me sad.

But take a closer look at such reasoning. Most of the reputable, fact-based news you see on the internet doesn't just sprout from the ground or grow on trees and certainly doesn't come from social media. When we’re talking about verifiable information, the original source is usually real journalists, albeit in declining numbers, who dig out information, conduct interviews and analyze data. These are people who expect to get paid so they can feed their families. 

If you don't support their work, it goes away. There's even a term for it now: Communities without newspapers are known as "news deserts" because they don't have access to reliable news, the lifeblood of democracy.

Since 1958, the Chestnut Hill Local has been doing its part by holding the powerful to account, working to ensure that they answer for their actions, and urging consequences when required. It’s not an easy job, especially in the current financial and political climate. Yet for the last two years in a row, the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association (PNA) Foundation has named the Local as one of the state’s News Organizations of the Year. It’s an unprecedented achievement for us.

This month, PNA announced its 2025 Professional Keystone Awards, and the Local raked in another dozen prizes: for ongoing news coverage (two in that category), business or consumer story, editorial, column, breaking news photo, feature photo, feature page design, headline writing, graphic/photo illustration, special section, and DEI reporting.

There are so many Local stories that reveal, inform and give readers the opportunity to take action. Examples: The sewer series that explained why flooding is a major issue in some neighborhoods, recent reporting about government funding cuts, development- and SEPTA-related reporting, and our op-eds that resulted in the post office improving its processes.

What’s more, the Local won the 2025 divisional sweepstakes in PNA’s Advertising Contest. These awards recognize departments “that continue to produce outstanding printed and digital classified and display ads, campaigns, and special publications and efforts worthy of much recognition,” according to PNA. That’s a boon for advertisers and consumers.

Our community is incredibly lucky to have such an asset, giving us many good reasons to subscribe and contribute during the Local’s fundraisers. You may not know that the paper operates on a shoestring, and sometimes continuing that operation has been a very close call. Your support matters, now more than ever. To get involved, or to subscribe, visit chestnuthilllocal.com. 

And remember that corruption flourishes in dark corners.

Donna Shaw is a member of the Chestnut Hill Local board of directors. A former reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer and editor for WebMD, she is a professor emerita and former chair of the Department of Journalism and Professional Writing at The College of New Jersey.